quote:I have it on high authority that there are, in fact, many vision-oriented mushroom eaters in Central Europe.

True, some of them are a bit squirrely, but aren't we all?

We return you now to your regularly programmed MartinV (for eVasive) replies.

I confess that my own study of mushrooms has been largely culinary and...ah...experiential, thus the "Colors var. fancy" subtopic. Still, it seemed absurd to read a human being deny the existence of visual predators of mushrooms other than squirrels--and in Europe, of all places!

More seriously, I especially enjoyed your discussion of pigmentation as a secondary effect, since my hunch when Martin raised the issue was that pigmentation changes could result indirectly from chemical consequences of other selectors rather than via direct selection of color itself. But a hunch is only a hunch, and it is invaluable when someone with in-depth knowledge steps forward.

1) selective advantage of polar bear2) protection from heating of mushrooms.3) we dont need to explain white color of swans because we know also black swans (and this seems to me the most curious explanation indeed. It looks like darwinists possess some secret teaching - "oh there are black swans on southern hemisfere? That explain very well why swans on northern hemesfere are white!)4) white color as side effect of development.

Michael claimed that there is no need for color for underground species so I have put forward red radish. Of cours we know also white radish and also spicy white horseradish, garlic, leeks which are somehow white too. I don't know whats the neo-darwinian explanation of the white color of them, becuase I do not see any vision oriented predators and protection from heating. So there will remain - I guess - for neodarwinists only some mysterious and unproven "pigmentation as a secondary effect". Something that is much more closed to "internal forces", conception that are darwinists afraid of.

But your answer as usually doesn't explain coloration neither of them (by breeding you donn't create new allele).

Mutation creates new alleles; this is well-known. Artificial selection then amplifies the frequency of those alleles until a population that reliably breeds true for the trait can be created.

Michael claimed that there is no need for color for underground species so I have put forward red radish.

Which was bred to be red, by humans. I don't see how that's relevant to selection in the wild. It's like asking "what's the evolutionary advantage of red pistachios?" None whatsoever, because pistachios aren't red; they're dyed that way by nut roasters.

Of cours we know also white radish and also spicy white horseradish, garlic, leeks which are somehow white too.

You might have noticed that almost all roots are white in the plant kingdom, because they contain no chloroplasts. So what color would they be, besides white, which is the absence of color?

Something that is much more closed to "internal forces", conception that are darwinists afraid of.

Mutation creates new alleles; this is well-known. Artificial selection then amplifies the frequency of those alleles until a population that reliably breeds true for the trait can be created.

Have you any link that can prove your claim that red color of radish was created during its breeding?

You might have noticed that almost all roots are white in the plant kingdom, because they contain no chloroplasts. So what color would they be, besides white, which is the absence of color?

I am not sure that white is absence of color (I would say it's the combination of them. Absenece of color would mean absence of light - you should see nothing. But its complicated problem and might be your opinion is correct as to mechanism of perceiving colors.)

But root vegetables we are speaking of have many colors, not only white:

quote:Root colour and size depend on the genus or species grown. Generally carrots are orange, red or gold in colour. Swedes and turnips tend to be cream, white and pale gold, swedes tending to have dark skins. Beetroot are generally dark red but also come in yellow and white, some with rings of colour.

Take my word for it - in subtractive color models (pigmentation is a subtractive color model), white is the absence of color.

That's why snow is white, even though water is clear; that's why ground glass is white, even though a pane of glass is clear. In pigmentive color modeling, white is the absence of color. You can look it up in any text on color theory if you don't believe me. (Don't get confused by the fact that in projective, additive color models, black is the absence of color. Those models don't apply to pigmentation.)

But root vegetables we are speaking of have many colors, not only white:

Again, carrots were bred for those colors; moreover, root vegetables are a special case because their roots not only take nutrients and water from the soil, but store starches and nutrients as well. That has an effect on color.

I will repeat it if you don't underestand me - such coloration have probably no selective advantage, because no one see it.

Again, you're talking about plants that humans have bred to have certain characteristics, including colors. Your attempt to tie this to natural selection is meaningless, because natural selection isn't being used to explain it. Natural selection explains the characteristics of organisms in the wild, not the characteristics they have because humans bred them that way.

Again, you're talking about plants that humans have bred to have certain characteristics, including colors.

Again let me ask as layman this question: we eat red strawberries and forest strawberries which are much more smaller are red too. I suppose we have bred strawberries. Yet the red color was present in material we started with.

Do you have on mind that red color of radish, carot etc was not present in material people started to breed?

Do you have on mind that red color of radish, carot etc was not present in material people started to breed?

I told you before; carrots are orange because they were bred to be orange by Dutch plant breeders. They weren't orange before. (As I recall, the original carrot stock had a deep reddish-purple color, like a beet.)

I still don't understand how Dutch plant breeding has anything to do with natural selection. Can you elaborate?

quote:I told you before; carrots are orange because they were bred to be orange by Dutch plant breeders. They weren't orange before. (As I recall, the original carrot stock had a deep reddish-purple color, like a beet.)

Wild carrot, aka Queen Anne's lace (from which the domestic carrot was bred), has a white root that is edible before it becomes too woody. If garden carrot varieties are left to seed, the population reverts to the wild form.

You mean using MartinV logic rather than actually considering all the relevant factors. I'd point out that bats are adapted to a nocturnal lifestyle and are thus better able to take advantag eof flyign at night to avoid daytime predators.

Evolution of bats is something that haven't been considered here yet.Evolution of bats brings in the same problem as evolution of whales does. In the same time when bats evolved scientists had placed adaptive radiation of birds. So we probably see two competitors in the same "empty niches" - predecessors of birds and bats. Yet oddly enough bats have to hurdle all stages of development - be it arboreal or other cursorial mechanism invented by darwinists.

Yet the first known predecessors of bats possess echolocators. Same is valid for whale predecessors (Pakicetus, Ambulocetus). So we have to consider the possibility that evolution of echolocators preceded mammalian evolution in air/sea. They might have appeared "in advance" anticipating future use in environment the mammal headed to. Such phenomenon is explainable by orthogenesis very well and is very hard to account for using darwinism.

Many nocturnal birds do not possess echolocators and thrive as well.Anyway it's curious to imagine how bats had been fully developed and only after then they were dislodged by birds into caves. It's as curious as to presume that terrestrial predecessor of bats had inhabited caves first and every night they went out to leap trees to catch insetcs flying down and evolved in such a way themselves into bats.

In other case darwinists should give some plausible explanation how echolocators coevolved with abilities to fly and what was the selective pressure that maintained and supported such mechanism in animals that had been neither terrestrial nor bats yet.

Some interesting facts of animals that should be considered as links between terrestrial-air mammals transition are in this material - it's in Russian language anyway:

Still, it seemed absurd to read a human being deny the existence of visual predators of mushrooms other than squirrels--and in Europe, of all places!

Probably you wouldn't believe me (untill a darwinistic student of mycology would agree with it before) but I have it again from "high authority" from Cetral Europe: mushroom eaters are not only squirrels and deers but also hedgehogs and even turtles.

So darwinists have a strong argument for selective pressure (do not forget slugs!) on mushrooms coloration from vision oriented mushrooms eaters!

Maybe selective pressure from vision oriented mushroom-eaters is much more higher in tropical forests - and supporting thus darwinistic story of coloration. At least Gerald Durell was very surprised by coloration of mushrooms in forests in Argentina - from wein-red to black, from yellow to to gray having phantasticall forms...Durell calls places full of mushrooms there as "Mackbeth's wizard country".

We should take into consideration facts not mentioned by Mike O Risal - there are lot of mushrooms that parasites on insects. For instance Septobasidium or even "predaceos mushrooms" - hymofycets.

The color of hat of very delicious mushroom Boletus edulis vary from brown to black - depending on vision oriented predators too?

----

I have read about animals trained to find out fungi by smell - dogs and pigs looking for tuber melanosporum (truffle?) - used in Italy from 15 century as well as in France. If you ever heard about trained vision-oriented animal searching for mushrooms let me know.

Going into the forest forget first darwinistic rule of thumb, that red one should be poisonous (aposematic) and those with green-hat one should be edible (cryptic). The opposite is true - those with green hats are mentioned poisonous Amanita phalloides. Those with red hats are either Amanita regalis (using by shamans etc..) or the pink - Amanita rubescens - which is very tasty and considered by some people as the most tasty mushroom at all. But do not taste red Amanita muscaria.

So darwinistic explanation of reason of coloration in living kingdom should be considered as only armchair excersise - do not follow rather darwinistic fancy explanation as to coloration in Nature - it can cost you a life.

White color basically means that the object/surface doesn't absorb any colors in the spectrum, meaning reflect back to you in their original amount (white).. Black on the other hand absorbs all colors in the visual spectrum, meaning none of the colors get reflected back.

Why are some original fruits red (notice why I dont say vegetables) or other bright colors, its because part of their reproductive cycle is done through transport by various other animals and sometimes bugs, being a bright color gives off that signal.

Why aren't original vegetables like that ??.. Because their reproductive system don't work from the edible area (usually underground) so the evolution of such colors would actually be a bad thing, as it would attract animals to eat it..

We put that color in because in some cases it may "look" tastier and in some cases they are used as decoration.

Try to explain coloration of mushrooms if you have an idea (yet check my posts on it before trying please).See also my previous post on poisonous species of Amanita genus.

We put that color in because in some cases it may "look" tastier and in some cases they are used as decoration.

Sometimes "decoration" aroused naturally, without breeding."Decoration" is something that is very near to Goethian "Gestaltungen" or Portmanns "Selbstdartellung". So "decoration" as such has neither selective advantage nor any survival advantage. Something origin of wich is unexplainable by darwinistic "random mutation & natural selection".

Thats why they dare to explain complicated coloration on butterflies wings or changing colors of cephalophodes - no one can check their fabulation here (they use millions of years of selection in past). Yet obviously much more simple phenomenon as white color of swans or above mentioned coloration of mushrooms - darwinists are lost, they stand mute. Using natural selection as explanation here - sounds weird even for them.